EPA Haze Rule – U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit Stays EPA From Implementing Final Haze Rule in Texas and Oklahoma.

The federal Clean Air Act requires the states and the federal government to establish and meet targets for visibility in protected national parks and wildlife areas through regulations that control air pollutants in ambient air. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410, 7491, 7492(e)(2). The federal government has the primary responsibility for identifying air pollutants and setting standards. The states, however, bear the primary responsibility for implementing those EPA standards by promulgating state implementation plans ("SIPs"). In accordance with the Act, the EPA issued a Regional Haze Rule in 1999 requiring states (1) to develop implementation plans by the end of 2007 for the 2009–2018 period and (2) to submit revised plans every ten years thereafter. 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(b), (f).

In January 2009, EPA found that Texas and Oklahoma (and several other states) had missed the 2007 deadline. Texas and Oklahoma subsequently submitted plans which were partially disapproved by EPA. In 2014, EPA proposed substitute federal plans and later issued its Final Rule in 2016. 81 Fed. Reg. 296 (Jan. 5, 2016). Claiming that the EPA was improperly targeting coal-fired power plants, the State of Texas, power plants, numerous energy companies, state regulators, and others filed a petition to review the Final Rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ("5th Circuit"). State of Texas v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Case No. 16-60118. On July 15, 2016, the 5th Circuit issued an order denying EPA's motion to dismiss or transfer of venue of the petition, finding that:

• The 5th Circuit, which encompasses Texas, has jurisdiction to review the Final Rule pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1);
• Venue in the 5th Circuit is proper because the petitioners' challenge addresses locally or regionally applicable action under the Act; and,
• Because staying implementation of the Final Rule was warranted, the 5th Circuit granted petitioners' motion for a stay pending resolution of the petitions for review on the   merits.

Because the EPA's actions involve 37 other states in other federal circuits, this matter may see inconsistent analyses by the several federal circuit courts and require final resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court.

  1333 Hits
1333 Hits

ENERGY TRANSFORMATION: CLEAN POWER PLAN AND THE WEST

When candidate Obama was running in 2008, he identified energy as his top priority and described his goal as the “transformation of American energy” to address the threat of climate change. On August 2, 2015, the President and the EPA Administrator announced the final rule to implement his Clean Power Plan. The focus of the rule is the reduction of carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 32% in 2030.

The rule is issued under the authority of the Clean Air Act Section 111(d) in what many acknowledge is a big stretch for language that was drafted long before climate change was an issue. The rule came as the result of a 2012 settlement of litigation brought by environmental groups and several northeastern states against EPA. See a just-released Senate Majority Staff, Environment and Public Works Committee Report, “Obama’s Carbon Mandate: An Account of Collusion, Cutting Corners, and Costing Americans Billons” on this “sue and settle” tactic. http://goo.gl/gLaviN

The rule addresses new and existing power plants and establishes a different carbon target reduction from a 2012 baseline for each state. According to EPA, each state has the flexibility to choose how it meets its own carbon targets, but the rule is built on three EPA “building blocks”:
• Make fossil fuel power plants more efficient
• Increase generation form lower-emitting combined cycle natural gas plants for reduced generation from higher emitting coal/gas-fired power plants
• Increase generation from new zero-emitting renewable energy power sources
If a state refuses to develop a plan consistent with the rule, EPA will enforce a federal model plan. The rule encourages states to work together and to develop a “cap and trade” program, similar to a proposal that failed to pass Congress in the President’s first term.

EPA projects compliance costs for the rule of between $$5.1-8.4 billion, with an individual’s energy costs increasing by 3%-1% early in the compliance period, but dropping to a net “savings” in 2030 as a result of reduced energy consumption.

Winners and losers? Obviously coal is the big loser, but surprisingly natural gas also came up short with the Administration backing away from gas as a “bridge fuel” in favor of incentives to support wind and solar generation and demand reduction.

The rule is voluminous – existing power plants are addressed in over 1800 pages, new and modified plants are covered in 900 pages and the EPA model federal plan clocks in at 755 pages. See http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants

What does the rule mean for the West? Much to the relief of Alaska (and Hawaii) there is no carbon target for these states, yet. Several western states are already on track to meet their carbon targets by 2030 as the result of state law and/or an energy mix already reliant on renewables: California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and South Dakota. The biggest loser among the states is North Dakota, which saw its 2030 target quadruple from an initially proposed 10.6% reduction to a 44.9% reduction in the final rule. Democratic North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp described the rule as a “slap in the face.” Wyoming, which supplies 70% of the nation’s coal, saw its target double from the draft rule to a 37-44% reduction in the final rule. Wyoming elected officials uniformly attacked the plan with Wyoming Senator Barasso (R) calling it a “job crushing mandate.” Montana was also hit hard with a doubling of its draft goal to a 41% reduction. Montana’s Democratic Governor Bullock said he was “extremely disappointed” by the change, and Montana’s AFL-CIO, which had planned to attend a rally in support of the rule, withdrew in light of the impact of the changed targets on union jobs.

In Utah, where 80% of its power is coal-fired and its renewable energy is sold out of state, elected officials denounced the plan; Senator Orrin Hatch (R) said the rule is “unjustified and potentially devastating for Utah and the nation.” In Colorado, reaction to the state target of a 28% reduction was divided along party lines, with the Democratic Governor Hickenlooper saying he will work to implement the target while Republican Attorney General Cynthia Coffman is considering joining in litigation to challenge the rule. In New Mexico, Republican Governor Susana Martinez and Democratic Senator Tom Udall were united in their belief that New Mexico was ready to comply with the law. See EPA-prepared charts for good summary of state-by-state impacts. https://goo.gl/4rScB4

Opinion among green groups is divided with Environmental Defense Fund Fred Krupp praising the rule as “historic” and an example of Presidential leadership, while the climate researcher and former NOAA scientist, James Hansen, derided the rule as “practically worthless.” The New York Times, in a front page story this week seemed to be “shocked” (see “Casablanca”) that the coal industry was already planning on how to defeat the rule before the rule was published. http://goo.gl/x0yzd3

There is 100% agreement on one thing -- the Clean Power Plan is headed for the courts as soon as EPA publishes the official version of the rule in the Federal Register expected later this month.

  2352 Hits
2352 Hits

Michigan v. EPA: The EPA Must Consider Costs in Emission Limits

On June 29, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court held in Michigan v. EPA that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must consider the costs of industry when deciding to set limits under the Clean Air Act on the emissions of hazardous air pollutants from certain stationary sources such as power plants. The decision, written by Justice Scalia, reversed the decision of the D.C. Court and held that ignoring costs was unreasonable.

The EPA had estimated that the cost of its regulations to power plants would be $9.6 billion per year, and estimated that the benefits from the resulting reduction in emissions would be between $4 million to $6 million each year. However, the EPA conceded that its cost analysis had “played no role” in finding that its regulation was appropriate and necessary. The Court held, “The Agency must consider cost – including, most importantly, cost of compliance – before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. We need not and do not hold that the law unambiguously required the Agency, when making this preliminary estimate, to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis in which each advantage and disadvantage is assigned a monetary value. It will be up to the Agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost.”

The Court remanded the EPA’s mercury and air toxic standards (MATS) to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

  1582 Hits
1582 Hits

EPA Proposes Methane Emissions Cuts for Oil and Gas to Meet Climate Change Goals

On January 14, 2015, the Obama Administration announced a plan to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas operations by 40 to 45 percent by 2025. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/14/fact-sheet-administration-takes-steps-forward-climate-action-plan-anno-1

This announcement is part of the implementation of the President’s 2013 Climate Action Plan, and, in particular, the 2014 “Strategy to Reduce Methane.” President Obama stated then that reducing methane emissions is “critical.” Widely viewed as part of the U.S. “quid” for the “quo” of China’s agreement to peak its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030, methane reduction will be a focus of administration policy-making for the next two years.

This 2015 announcement is built on the foundation of several earlier actions. In 2009, pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA issued the “Endangerment Finding” determining that GHG emissions endanger public health. At that time, the EPA identified methane as one of “the two most important, directly emitted, long-lived greenhouse gases.” 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496, 66,517 (Dec. 15, 2009). Methane is considered to be a more potent GHG than CO2. Also in 2009, the EPA issued a mandatory GHG reporting rule under CAA §114. The oil and gas industry began reporting under subpart W of this rule in 2011. As of 2014, subpart W now covers multiple oil and gas facilities and activities including upstream, gathering and boosting, completions and workovers of fracked oil wells, natural gas distributors, pipeline transportation, and blowdowns of natural gas transmission pipelines between compressors. Finally, in April 2014 the EPA issued five technical “white papers” on oil and gas methane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions covering compressors, completions/productions, leaks, liquids unloading and pneumatic devices.

The EPA’s 2015 proposal is based on the data collected from the 2009 mandatory reporting rule and the analyses in the 2014 white papers. According to the EPA, methane makes up 10% of GHG and of that total, 30% is contributed by oil and gas. The EPA recognizes that the industry has decreased its methane emissions by 16% since 1990, but is focused on a predicted 25% increase over the next decade. As proposed, these EPA measures apply only to new or modified facilities. Environmental groups will push for application to existing facilities while the industry will argue that voluntary actions have a proven record of achievement.

In order to meet the new goal, the White House proposes several initiatives that will be implemented by several federal agencies:

EPA - New Standards for Methane and VOC Emissions - In the summer of 2015, the EPA will be proposing new standards in a rule for methane and VOCs from “new and modified oil and gas production sources, and natural gas processing and transmission sources” for the oil and gas industry. On January 28, 2015, the EPA called for input from oil and gas small businesses, NGOs and states on the development of a rule to reduce methane and VOCs under the CAA New Source Performance Standards. After considering comments from the states, the oil and gas industry and the public, the EPA will issue a final rule in 2016.
EPA - New Guidelines for Reducing VOCs - The EPA will be developing new guidelines and proposing control measures to reduce VOC emissions from oil and gas operations that states could adopt to help meet air quality standards for ozone. The EPA will publish Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) to address options for VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas and states in the Ozone Transport Region.

EPA - Enhanced Leak Detection and Reporting - The EPA will be considering remote sensing technologies to improve the accuracy of reported methane emissions.

BLM - Updated Standards on Public Lands - In April 2015 the BLM will be proposing an update to standards (Onshore Order No. 9) for new and existing oil and gas wells on public lands to reduce venting, flaring and leaks of methane. The final Order is expected in April 2016.

DOT - New Pipeline Safety Standards - Later this year, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) will be proposing new natural gas pipeline safety standards to reduce emissions.

DOE - Technology and Emissions Quantification - The federal budget for Fiscal Year 2016 includes approximately $25 million in funding for the development of technology to detect and repair natural gas transmission leaks, development of next generation compressors and quantification of natural gas emissions.

Over the next few years, methane emissions may be reduced automatically if low prices for oil and gas persist and production drops. In the meantime, the emissions reducing strategies outlined above will begin to take effect.

EPA Fact Sheet on the Proposal may be found at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/ba7961bf631c87bf85257dcd00526ff7!OpenDocument

  2611 Hits
2611 Hits